TiVo lawsuit explodes into billion-dollar stakes

By Scott M. Fulton, III and Tim Conneally | Published July 14, 2009, 10:36 PM

Yesterday, in a go-for-broke strategy which could very well snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, satellite TV systems manufacturer EchoStar (partner and former owner of Dish Network) filed a motion in US District Court in Marshall, Texas, asking the court to suspend proceedings until the outcome of EchoStar's federal appeal is heard, in the patent infringement case brought against it by DVR manufacturer TiVo. An injunction against EchoStar is being stayed pending that appeal.

That's not a big deal in itself. What is big is EchoStar's assertion that sanctions being sought against it amount to as much as $1 billion -- the first time the proverbial math has alluded to TiVo's potential jackpot. This in addition to the $104 million that the Supreme Court decided EchoStar was liable for, in its refusal to hear EchoStar's first appeal.

Marshall, Texas is known as the intellectual property suit capital of America, mainly because juries there have been more generous with damages awards than anyplace else. A billion dollar grand prize, which is apparently what TiVo may seek in sanctions, is not outside of Marshall's ballpark at all.

EchoStar's worst-case-scenario argument to the Marshall, Texas goes like this: Should TiVo prevail on appeal, then the fact that the Appeals Court stayed the EchoStar injunction would mean that the formula for determining damages would have to be reworked, to take into account the intervening appeal.

"Even if TiVo prevails on appeal, aspects of the Federal Circuit's ruling could affect the appropriate remedy," reads EchoStar's motion filed Monday. "TiVo's sanctions motion relies on specific findings that may not remain intact even if the Federal Circuit affirms this Court's conclusion that EchoStar did not comply with every provision of the injunction. If so, any briefing, argument, or ruling on the issue of sanctions in advance of the Federal Circuit's decision would need to be revisited. Deferring sanctions proceedings until after resolution of the expedited appeal would avoid such inefficiency."

TiVo is one of the pioneers of the digital video recorder (DVR) which is, at its most basic level, a cable box that can record TV shows according to programming guides and schedules. One of TiVo's patents related to DVR design, commonly referred to as the "Time Warp patent," covers the way TiVo units could simultaneously record one program whilst playing back one that was already recorded.

Dish Network, which was owned by EchoStar Communications, debuted a similar function in some of its satellite receiver boxes in 2005. It is estimated that about four million of these units were sold when TiVo sued EchoStar for infringing on nine different aspects of the aforementioned Time Warp patent. A Texas jury ruled in TiVo's favor and ordered EchoStar to shell out nearly $73 million in damages. But as Hoefer & Arnett analyst April Horace said at the time, "This is the first inning in a long ballgame. Looking historically at this, the cable industry fights patents and does not just roll over and license technology."

And a long battle it became indeed. Echostar issued a software update to the infringing DVRs which the manufacturer claimed made them legal non-infringing. TiVo TiVo disputed that claim, asking for an injunction on the DVRs. The court again ruled in TiVo's favor and ordered Echostar to disable all DVR functionality on the infringing boxes.

To make a long story short, EchoStar continued to develop workarounds without informing the court, and when these workarounds became known some months later, TiVo moved to hold EchoStar in contempt of court for violating the court's terms of the injunction. Thus the case grew another metaphorical arm: the issue of whether EchoStar was acting in contempt of court when it employed these workarounds. The other arm of the case remained focused on the actual infringement.

The longer this case has gone on, the bigger the payout for TiVo has become. The next hearing on this issue in District Court could be scheduled as early as November.

Comments

View comments by with a score of at least

It's funny how hard they're fighting to defend the stolen, err...borrowed technology when all they have to do is license it. Is it really THAT expensive to license? Certainly Tivo wasn't asking for a billion dollars.

There are many, many cases where I don't agree with how patents apply to products, but I think it's pretty clear that Tivo was indeed the pioneer in this case. Noone had ever heard of a DVR before, unless it was in terms of recording TV on your PC now coined, PVR. So even if Tivo was inspired by the aspect of recording video from TV to a hard drive on your PC - they made it an independent box that hooked up to your cable. That Echostar would try to follow that formula and not pay some kind of royalty to Tivo is just plain wrong.

Score: 0

|

Echostar should just drop all this and license the technology before TiVo ends up owning Echostar.

Score: 0

|

At this point, TiVo will probably want 50% of EchoStar in exchange for a license :)

Score: 0

|

This is ridiculous that US law allows a company to have a 100% monopoly on a service or product. I can't believe the courts are saying that it's illegal for a cable/satellite box to have DVR functionality in any way, shape or form without paying massive licensing fees to TiVo. This is as bad as a court saying an operating system can't have graphical windows because it would be an illegal copy of Microsoft's Windows operating system.

Score: -2

|

You've got to be kidding 'god dammit'!

You want to outlaw patents? Let anyone copy your idea and farm production out to some other country?

Also funny that you attribute the windowed OS to Microsoft... who actually copied it from Apple.

Score: 0

|

Apple and Microsoft both stole it from Xerox.

Score: -1

|

Yeah, Apple took some of the interface from Xerox... but Xerox didn't really complain since they weren't doing anything with it.

Score: 1

|

I'm just saying TiVo's patents are too broad if they prevent anyone else from making a device of any kind that records digital video. It's as bad as saying if anyone wants to make a fully functional computer they have to pay royalties either directly or indirectly to Rambus because they have a patent on DDR SDRAM memory technologies. Monopolies need to be regulated better.

Score: -1

|

I agree. Screw all these companies that put millions of dollars into development of new technologies . . . they should just eat the loss and give everything away for free.

Digital video recording devices in general don't infringe on TiVo's patents (hence the plethora of other DVRs available on the market). The problem is that Dish chose to implement a design that did infringe . . . and then, when a judge told them to stop all DVR functionality until things could be straightened out they stuck their middle finger up to the judge and totally ignored the order.

Score: 1

|

Dish didn't knowingly infringe on TiVo's patents. They simply weren't aware that TiVo had such broad patents. The judge told Dish to stop making DVR's that infringe on TiVo's patents. No one ever told Dish they couldn't fix the problem and make DVR's that do not infringe on TiVo's patents. Now Dish is being punished for trying to make good and change their DVR so it doesn't infringe on TiVo's patents. This is nothing more than an honest mistake by Dish that is being blown out of proportion.

Score: 0

|

"Echostar issued a software update to the infringing DVRs which the manufacturer claimed made them legal non-infringing. TiVo disputed that claim, asking for an injunction on the DVRs. The court again ruled in TiVo's favor and ordered Echostar to disable all DVR functionality on the infringing boxes."

"EchoStar continued to develop workarounds without informing the court, and when these workarounds became known some months later, TiVo moved to hold EchoStar in contempt of court for violating the court's terms of the injunction."

Nuf said.

Score: 1

|

Microsoft's Ray Ozzie: 'Nobody's going to be 100% open'

The mobile apps ecosystems of the world may converge over time, led by apps being ported over across platforms, according to the Chief Software Architect.

Will Firefox beat IE9 to Direct2D rendering?

Just days after Microsoft executives gave conference attendees a peek at a new rendering technology, a Mozilla contributor revealed he's working on the same thing.

Where there's smoke: Apple warranty stance raises troubling questions

Carmi Levy | Wide Angle Zoom: Smoking can be dangerous not only for your lungs, it appears, but for your Apple hardware warranty.

The fallacy of Facebook privacy

Carmi Levy | Wide Angle Zoom: If an insurance company learns something interesting about its client through the Internet, is that snooping?

Microsoft 'worked with Apple' for Silverlight on iPhone, says Goldfarb

By not making such a big deal out of trying to stream video to the iPhone, Microsoft got a big deal out of it, revealed the Silverlight product manager.

Clicker.com cuts through the Web video chaos

In a world where homemade video and Hollywood movies travel the same pipeline, it's good to have a real search engine to cut through the clutter.

A case study in improving software: What Office 2010 can learn from Notion 3

A music composition product gambles with a complete overhaul, in an effort to make headway against two well-known competitors in a tough market.

Kindle 2 update adds battery life, native PDF reader

Amazon has pushed out an update to the Kindle 2 e-reader that lengthens battery life and adds a native PDF viewer.

Safari on iPhone gets competition from a $1 browser app

Apple likes to say it gives iPhone users a full browsing experience, but a new competitor tries to incorporate more desktop browser features.

Action Replay maker sues Microsoft for Xbox 360 'predatory technological barriers'

Third-party video game accessory maker Datel has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft over the Xbox 360's recent Dashboard update.